file_dedup

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds no additional behavioral context. It does not disclose whether the input file is modified in-place or if a new output file is created, nor does it explain any side effects beyond 'remove duplicate packets.'

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, direct sentence with no extraneous words. It is well-structured and front-loaded, delivering the core purpose immediately without unnecessary elaboration.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with six parameters and no schema descriptions, this description is grossly incomplete. It fails to mention the required input_file and output_file, the optional deduplication settings, or the expected output format, making it insufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description has the burden of explaining the six parameters, but it mentions none of them. The terms window, ignore_bytes, time_window_sec, and skip_radiotap_header remain entirely undefined, leaving the agent to guess their roles.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Remove duplicate packets from a capture file.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like file_merge, file_slice, and file_write_filtered_capture, which perform different operations on capture files.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It simply states the action without any context about prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where this tool is preferred over other file-processing tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.